SAFE working paper
https://safe-frankfurt.de/de/publikationen/working-papers.html
Refine
Year of publication
- 2020 (2) (remove)
Document Type
- Working Paper (2)
Language
- English (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2)
Keywords
- Algorithmic Discrimination (1)
- Artificial Intelligence (1)
- Batch Learning (1)
- Economics (1)
- Game Theory (1)
- discrimination (1)
- outgroup derogation (1)
- relative performance feedback (1)
- social identity (1)
Institute
- Sustainable Architecture for Finance in Europe (SAFE) (2) (remove)
287
Using experimental data from a comprehensive field study, we explore the causal effects of algorithmic discrimination on economic efficiency and social welfare. We harness economic, game-theoretic, and state-of-the-art machine learning concepts allowing us to overcome the central challenge of missing counterfactuals, which generally impedes assessing economic downstream consequences of algorithmic discrimination. This way, we are able to precisely quantify downstream efficiency and welfare ramifications, which provides us a unique opportunity to assess whether the introduction of an AI system is actually desirable. Our results highlight that AI systems’ capabilities in enhancing welfare critically depends on the degree of inherent algorithmic biases. While an unbiased system in our setting outperforms humans and creates substantial welfare gains, the positive impact steadily decreases and ultimately reverses the more biased an AI system becomes. We show that this relation is particularly concerning in selective-labels environments, i.e., settings where outcomes are only observed if decision-makers take a particular action so that the data is selectively labeled, because commonly used technical performance metrics like the precision measure are prone to be deceptive. Finally, our results depict that continued learning, by creating feedback loops, can remedy algorithmic discrimination and associated negative effects over time.
281
Using a novel experimental design, I test how the exposure to information about a group’s relative performance causally affects the members’ level of identification and thereby their propensity to harm affiliates of comparison groups. I find that both, being informed about a high and poor relative performance of the ingroup similarly fosters identification. Stronger ingroup identification creates increased hostility against the group of comparison. In cases where participants learn about poor relative performance, there appears to be a direct level effect additionally elevating hostile discrimination. My findings shed light on a specific channel through which social media may contribute to intergroup fragmentation and polarization.